Manuscript submitted to PRS global open

— Toward Better Rhinoplasty —

Recently, I submitted a manuscript to the international plastic surgery journal PRS Global Open describing a rhinoplasty technique I have been developing and refining in my daily clinical practice.

Of course, submission does not guarantee publication. For a paper to be accepted, it must undergo rigorous peer review by editors and reviewers, often requiring revisions and critical evaluation before a final decision is made. Rejection is always a real possibility.

Even so, there was a clear reason I chose to take on this challenge.

I believe that “good results” alone are not enough.

In aesthetic surgery, techniques are refined through

• experience,
• intuition, and
• the accumulation of cases.

At the same time, I believe it is essential to articulate and examine:

• why something works—or does not work,
• what structural principles underlie the outcome, and
• how reproducible the technique truly is.

Putting these ideas into words, testing them, and inviting evaluation by third parties is crucial. Submitting a scientific paper is one way to do that.

About This Paper

The manuscript I submitted focuses on a technique designed to stabilize nasal tip support, taking into account the anatomical characteristics commonly seen in East Asian noses.

Through daily surgery, I have repeatedly encountered challenges such as:

• unnatural results caused by excessive cartilage grafting,
• an overly rigid nasal tip, and
• the risk of long-term deformation.

In response, I organized an approach centered on preserving as much native tissue as possible while creating a natural and stable support structure.

I will spare the technical details here, but to some, this approach may appear unconventional. At a time when highly projected, elongated, and visually striking (“showy”) rhinoplasty results tend to attract attention, especially on social media, this work deliberately moves in the opposite direction—like the other side of a pendulum. The question I continue to pursue is: How can we achieve refined, beautiful results while using less cartilage, discarding nothing, and respecting native anatomy? It is a difficult challenge and no one has cracked the code yet.

Writing a Paper Means Re-Examining One’s Practice

The process of writing a paper forces you to revisit every step of your technique and repeatedly ask yourself:
“Is this truly optimal?”
“How does this compare with other methods?”
“Is there an even better way?”

Honestly, it is an exhausting process—months of persistent, almost obsessive reflection. Yet at the same time, it is a process that elevates the quality of clinical care to the next level, bringing clarity and structure to one’s thinking.

Moving Back and Forth Between Clinic and Academia

Daily surgery is completed in the clinical setting, but I believe that the true value of surgical techniques expands only when they are shared, examined, and validated by your peers.

Rather than assuming that “more cases means being right,” I want to continue exploring whether there are additional possibilities to meet each patient’s wishes—by paying attention to even the smallest insights—and to keep moving back and forth between clinical practice and research.

Always a Student — Aspiring to Remain a Learning Surgeon

At this moment, I do not know how this paper will ultimately be received. What I do know is that the driving force behind this effort was a simple desire: to provide better treatment for my patients.

Here at MSA, we value medical care grounded not only in trends, but in both sound theory and accumulated experience. Moving forward, through both clinical practice and research, we will continue striving for results that are more natural and achieve a higher level of patient satisfaction.